Arbcom case: The Troubles.

Manticore126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor has chosen to repeatedly edit war ([1] [2] [3]) changing Derry to Londonderry against the consensus at WP:IMOS, despite being told of this, and receiving a Troubles warning before the last edit. O Fenian (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case: The Troubles.

Falls Orangeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For over a week this editor has made the same repeated, inflammatory, point-of-view edits to Falls Road, Belfast. They were notified of the sanctions here, yet proceeded to make virtually the same edit again here. To show how biased the edit is, even Mooretwin has taken exception to the edit, which to any admins familiar with Troubles articles should be unusual, as it is not often Mooretwin, Domer48, BigDunc and myself are all in agreement. In his latest edit he has chosen not to claim that "Catholic militants" were killed in the Falls Curfew instead of the sourced "Catholic civilians", and has instead labelled them "Catholic terrorists". This is a disgusting attack on the dead, see 3 and 4 July for online confirmation those killed were civilians, not members of any paramilitary organsation. Request action to be taken against this editor please. O Fenian (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a 12 hour block for disruptive editing could be justified. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the passage of time, such a short block would be pointless. Jehochman ^Talk 04:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baku87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked in the past for 48 hours under WP:ARBAA2. Under WP:ARBAA2 editors are limited to 1 revert per week, editors must maintain civility, and editors must discuss their reverts. Recently Baku87 has revert warred exceeding the 1 rv per week restriction at article Shusha and has been uncivil in the edit summaries of his reverts at the articles Stepanakert and Shusha or has not provided edit summaries.

Reverts at Shusha

• 1st - 12:10, 22 February 2009
• 2nd - 22:45, 22 February 2009

Incivility or no edit summaries at articles Shusha and Stepanakert

• Baku87 refers to constructive edits at Shusha as vandalism in his edit summary
• Baku87 reverts constructive edits at Shusha without an edit summary
• Baku87 reverts constructive edits at Stepanakert without and edit summary.

I believe that this type of behavior does the project harm as constructive edits are reverted without discussion. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo.. slowdown.. Incivility? Please provide sources for your harsh scandalizations towards me were I have been uncivil and not accounted for it. And how on earth is it possible to call these [4] [5] [6] constructive edits? This is just vandalism, IP user 216.165.12.158 has been putting his own map in those articles without any discussion and you call these constructive? If there is anything incivil here it is you who scandilizes me and calls spam-reverts "constructive". Baku87 (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already did above, you called the ip's constructive edits that would have improved the map at Stepanakert vandalism. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"... has been putting his own map in those articles without any discussion and you call these constructive?" And you're the one writing that? Sardur (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baku87 is not on revert parole, thus he is not violating anything. Edits at Shusha were reverts of vandalism by anonymous IP 216.165.12.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has been edit warring on a very large number of articles and who is reported just below. Grandmaster 05:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs edits are not vandalism, as far as I can see they are very constructive. Also, Baku87 has already been blocked under ARBAA2 so he is under the restrictions of ARBAA2. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How edit warring across dozens of pages can be constructive? And if the IP was constructive, why did the admin warn such a constructive user? Grandmaster 05:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map that the IP was replacing at Shusha and Stepanakert would have been an improvement to the article if Baku87 didn't revert it multiple times breaking the restrictions under ARBAA2. Also, he reverted it as vandalism which is uncivil and WP:BITEy. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course edit warring across dozens of articles by the anon was not improvement, it was a clear vandalism, reverting of which does not even count as rv. And Baku87 is not under any editing restriction, so 1 rv per week parole does not apply to him. Frivolous report. Grandmaster 05:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More revert waring by Baku87

14:06, 23 February 2009

14:41, 23 February 2009

Don't forget to mention Sardur (talk · contribs), who started the edit war, despite the fact that FfD decided to keep the map that Sardur is trying to delete. Grandmaster 05:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget to mention that Baku87 refuses any dialogue. Sardur (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there was no consensus to delete it, it does not mean there was consensus to use it. The question to delete or keep this map is still discussed by admins here. --Vacio (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why Sardur is deleting the map from the articles, instead of waiting for the outcome of that discussion? Grandmaster 06:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because as you are aware, this map is facing strong accusations. Precautionary principle. I could return the question: why is this map again and again reinserted while it's still under discussion? Sardur (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worrisome are the recent edits of Baku87: in the ADR article he made 4 identical reverts by replacing his self-made map ([7][8][9][10]), three of which were made in the last 2 days. Also this massive reverts of him ([11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] [19][20]) regarding the name Shushi/Shusha notwithstanding my duly warning that no massive changes should be made without consensus. --Vacio (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even counting how many reverts the IP 216.165.12.158 made, the number is huge, and Baku87 reverted vandalism by the anon. As for the ADR article, you can see that Sardur made 3 rvs on the same article: [21] [22] [23], and the anon 216.165.12.158 another 2: [24] [25] Grandmaster 06:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This report looks meritless. The first two edits complained about appear to be helpful rather than harmful. Jehochman ^Talk 17:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another edit warrior, reverting multiple pages at once. Just today 216.165.12.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) reverted a large number of pages, mostly replacing Shusha with Shushi, Russian empire with Nagorno-Karabakh. As one can see, he reverts in tandem with User:Vacio. This should be stopped. Grandmaster 07:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a look at the reverts by 216.165.12.158 here so is it really this easy for just a random IP user to revert everything just like this and expect no consequences at all?? Baku87 (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khoikhoi has blocked this IP for two weeks for "crazy reverting spree". I will add that these two edit summaries were especially noxious: [26][27] If the IP resumes, I will reblock for much longer next time. Jehochman ^Talk 17:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:White_adept has openely defied all the arbitration rulings. I sincerely request somebody to look into this case.

Article: Sathya Sai Baba

Who: User:White_adept

What: Violated Arb.com rulings, Malicious editing based on Unreliable sources

Arb.com Case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2

Notifications: :

• User:White_adept was notified about his violations here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=271276007&oldid=271223586,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:White_adept#Repeated_Violations_in_Sathya_Sai_Baba

Diff:

• User:White_adept made 190 edits between Jan 8th 2009 - Jan 17th 2009 in a matter of 10 days.

User:White_adept edit history from Jan 8th 2009 - Jan 17th 2009

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&offset=20090112194443&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&offset=20090113095053&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&offset=20090115120459&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&offset=20090117105156&action=history
• Made article highly critical, lengthy, unmanageable with unreliable sources.

• Comparison of the article before and after User:WhiteAdepts changes.

Article as of 5th January 2009 before User:White_adept edits - See the contents of the article below: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=262058572&oldid=262058463.

Article as of Jan 23rd 2009 after User:White_adept major edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=265883266&oldid=265883222

Background:

Sathya Sai Baba has been very controversial article which went through 2 arbitrations. During which several rulings were passed and editors were warned against using unreliable sources. Editors who were either strong pro or critic of Sathya Sai Baba were banned from editing this article. User:WhiteAdept has disrupted this article breaking many of the first and second arbitration rulings.

Arbitration rulings and violations by User:White_adept

1) Second Arb.com passed ruling on NPOV sources: Second arb.com greatly stressed on using NPOV sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#NPOV_and_sources.

Unreliable sources used by User:WhiteAdept:

• User:White_adept's main sources for major restructuring the article were Robert Priddy, "The Findings by Bailey" and Basava Premananda.
• All these sources contain lot of POV views, personal experiences and are largely unverifiable and they violate the above Arb.com ruling.

2) Second Arbitration Robert Priddy: Second arb.com passed a decision saying Robert Priddy cannot be used. Please see arbitration ruling on using Priddy as a reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy.

• I notified User:White_adept several times not to add Priddy as reference as it was direction violation of the above rule. I notified in the talk page about removing Priddy references from the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=267125825&oldid=266902860.
• I removed Priddy references from the article on Jan 31st 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=prev&oldid=267664644.
• Priddy references were added by User:White_adept along with his other edits directly violating the above arb.com ruling. I tried 4 times to remove Priddy references from the article. User:White_adept again added Priddy references back on 16th February 2009 along with his other edits inspite of very well knowing its an arbitration violation. Here's the history of his 16th February 2009 related to Robert Priddy http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=271100525&oldid=271093472.

3) Second Arbitration ruling on adding poorly sourced information:

Second arb.com ruling says "The remedies in the prior decision regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba

• Sources used by User:White_adept:

• "The Findings by Bailey" is one main source used by White_Adept.He added major POV sections based on this source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Initial_report_-_.27The_Findings.27. This is another example of unreliable source filled with personal views and experiences of Bailey's. This source has already been discussed during mediation by BostonMA and dismissed as unverifiable and unreliable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation.
• Basava Premananda and his book:

• Another main source used by User:White_adept is Basava Premananda and his book. In the talk page White Adept called it as a leading journel.
• Basava Premananda has already been discussed again in detail during Mediation by BostonMA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Premanand_as_a_Source#Indian_Skeptic_as_a_Reputable_Source Neither the Indian critic nor his journal was accepted as a reliable source.
• User:White Adept added a major POV section based on Basava Premananda's book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Murders_in_ashram
• Added gruesome picture. He repeatedly edit warred with me when I tried to remove these pictures based on unreliable source.

The Problem:

• Second Arbitration's Finding of Fact:

Second arbitration passed a ruling saying Sathya Sai Baba is weakly sourced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Sathya_Sai_Baba_is_weakly_sourced.

• User:White_adept has made it more weakly sourced by adding more POV sections based on unverifiable sources and unreliable stories.

• Remedies from Second Arbitration: One of the remedies was to ban editors who were strong Pro / Critic of Baba and also other were warned about using poor negative sources. It says as follows "The remedies at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles".

• Inspite of this ruling User:White_adept has used the following unreliable sources - Priddy, The Findings and Basava Premananda for his major edits to the article. Inspite of being reminding about his arbitration violations here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:White_adept#Repeated_Violations_in_Sathya_Sai_Baba. He did not make any effort in removing any of the priddy reference which directly violated arb.com ruling.
• When I notified User:White_adept his arb.com ruling violations on Priddy and his other sources this was his response - "Robert Priddy is a respected professor of philosophy and sociologist and his writings have been used as such in leading Indian skeptical journals such as Premanand's. Anyway - if you look at things from that perspective Narasimha biography etc are all violate WP:RS. But the sources such as "the findings" are being used to identify the perspective of the source on the topic - which indeed is of relevance and well within what wikipedia policies allow us to use. It is more acceptable because it is completely consistent with the mainstream perspective. White adept (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)". He is not only a POV pusher but also a very strong critic of Sai Baba. His views on the talk page praising Robert Priddy, Basava Premananda - well known critic of Baba, his one sided biased editing rewriting the article in critics perspective and removing positive views on Sai Baba only proves his strong critical views of Sai Baba.[reply]

Current State of the article.

• As a result of User:WhiteAdept major edits this article has major sections based on unreliable sources and filled with unverifiable stories.
• The article is totally imbalanced rewritten in a critics perspective with 90% undue weightage to criticism of Sathya Sai Baba.
• To remove these unreliance sources and bring some balance to the article is going to take a long time and effort due to the enormous baised editing by User:White_Adept.

Steps towards improving the article:

• I have spent quite a lot of time familiarising with the earlier discussions and rulings. I sincerely believe that this article can be improved by implemeting Jossi proposals which arbitration commitee recommended.
• But unless the unreliable sources are weeded out there can be no improvements to this article.
• User:White_adept massive edits have clearly violated many of the arbitration rulings and WP:BLP policies and also caused serious disruption to this very controversial article.

• I tried to remove Priddy references which was direct violation of arb.com ruling I was faced with repeated editwarring from User:White_adept. He added back priddy references with other edits. With this user's editwarring, constant POV pushing I don't think any improvements can be made in the article. I request either a complete Sathya Sai Baba topic ban on User:White_adept inorder to remove the unreliable sources and move toward improving this article as per the arbitration commitee recommendations.

I have notified User:White_Adept here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:White_adept&diff=272631772&oldid=272108721. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What specific remedy has been breached? What is the name of the arbitration case, and the remedy number? Jehochman ^Talk 04:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two arbitration cases. The more recent is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2 (closed Dec 07, amended Apr 08), the older is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba (closed Dec 06). I think the first two remedies in the older case (reinforced by remedy 4 in the newer case) are the remedies at issue - the complainer alleges that much of the new material is poorly sourced, that he attempted to remove it in accordance with those remedies, and that the subject of the complaint has been edit warring to reinsert the material. GRBerry 18:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think we should issue a warning to the subject not to restore questionably sourced material, and to appeal the matter to WP:RSN or use WP:DR if they disagree. If they persist after a warning, then sanctions could be considered. Jehochman ^Talk 20:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message] has been left for the subject. Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vacio (talk · contribs) has been twice placed on editing restrictions, but both times the sanctions were lifted, first time because the admin was given incorrect information that Vacio had no prior warning, [34] [35] [36] and second time after Vacio promised not to edit war. [37] [38] However he continues edit warring on a big number of articles. Today he mass reverted pages without any consensus on using the place name that he prefers. He made 9 reverts at once: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46], replacing Russian empire with Nagorno-Karabakh, and the city name of Shusha with Shushi, despite the fact that when the city was a part of the Russian empire, it was officially called Shusha, and no such state as Nagorno-Karabakh ever existed. In addition, he made another controversial revert on Nakhchivan: [47], which is his second revert on that article during this week: [48] As one can see, an official warning, and imposition of editing restrictions twice had no effect, and the lifting of editing restrictions was a mistake. According to the ruling of the arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. I believe it is time to place Vacio on editing restrictions once again, and this time permanently. Grandmaster 16:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of your diffs show that Vacio has done anything wrong. You are showing one edit for separate articles. If you have a dispute with Vacio then use WP:DR. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring across multiple pages is disruption. Grandmaster 07:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My recent reverts which Grandmaster calles edit warring can be understandable for admins if they see how some users repeatedly refuse to first reach consensus then make changes and even neglect what was/is discussed in the relevant talkpage.

• First about the name Shushi (Shushi and Shusha are equivalent forms of the name of a city in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh). Some time ago, I notices that Parishan (talk · contribs) is engaged in endless edit warring as a result of repeatedly replacing Shushi with Shusha in certain WP articles. How terrible such an edit warring can be, admins can observe in the Gabriel Kafian or Arakel Babakhanian articles (there seem to be more reverts in the history of these articles than normal edits!). Then, as far as I familiarized myself with WP rules, when we WP users have differances, we should first reach consensus, then make changes. That is what I more than once noticed in Talk:Arakel Babakhanian, but Grandmaster and Parishan seemed not to see anything wrong in their actions. When I provided enough sources that, unlike Parishan and Grandmaster claim, the city at the time in question was equally called Shushi in English language sources, and when it seemed that their changes were not based on WP rules, I replaced the form Shushi in some of the articles, where they were moved by Parishan, not because I wanted to reach something by means of edit warring, but because I think that it is wrong to make massive changes without having reached consensus, not even having discussed it on the right place (which in this case would be Talk:Shusha). Btw. I would ask the attention of admins on the fact theat Baku87 (talk · contribs) and Baki66 (talk · contribs) nevertheless continued edit warring in the articles in question making reverts without even an edit summary.
• As for my edits in Nakhchivan article, in fact Grandmaster himself reverted my edit [49] which were explained in the talkpage and were based on WP:NC and WP:NCGN. Second time, I only restored the unexplained reverts by Baki66 who never participated in the ongoing discussion and not even left an edit summary. I acknowledge that in this case I should be more patient, but sometimes it is difficult to be so, when other users permit themselves to make reverts as much as they want.

At the time when I was twice briefly placed under AA restrictions, I was not familiarized with WP rules and I was not always aware that I was edit warring. Also, I ask admins to note that the last time I was involved in edit warring was because user Grandmaster and Parishan again and again neglected the discussion in the relevant talkpage, a fact about which I informed Rlevse and the reason why he lifted these restriciones, one can read in my talkpage. --Vacio (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why you were placed on editing restrictions was you edit warring across multiple pages. You promised to refrain from such behavior, and that's why you were given another chance. Yet once again you started an edit war across multiple pages, on which you were suspiciously joined by 216.165.12.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who never previously edited, and his contributions are identical to yours, replacing the name of Shusha with Shushi and Russian empire with Nagorno-Karabakh in dozens of articles about the Armenia - Azerbaijan topics. Your POV pushing in this issue is clear and obvious, Shusha is the only official name this city had, be that in the Russian empire or USSR, see Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary: [50] or Great Soviet Encyclopedia: [51], or even Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition: [52] If you insist on using a name for the town that is different from the name of the article about that town (the article about the town is called Shusha), and using it outside of any historical context, you should have taken it to the dispute resolution, and not start a massive edit war with the support of anonymous users. Such behavior is extremely disruptive and should not be tolerated. Grandmaster 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be proper for you to wait first for the results of these case, then accuse me being connected with 216.165.12.158? Your aggressive way of accusing me for "edit warring across multiple pages" just shows very good how you understand WP:WAR, you claim that your version is the only right one and my version is POV pushing. This place is however not the proper place to discuss who is right who is wrong. It is quite possible that your version is the right one, the problem is that you need to discuss it and reach a consensus before making changes. What you and Parishan did was the very opposite and the result of such an behavior itself was the very reason of edit-warrs, something I tried to stop. I am sure it is not your accusations that admins will take into account by making decisions. --Vacio (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that you and IP were the same person, so what's the point in CU? I did discuss it, and you started an edit war across multiple pages, in which you were joined by the IP. Grandmaster 13:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask admins to take notice of the fact that user Grandmaster accuses me for things himself is chargeable for.

• According to Grandmaster I am guilty for 1) replacing Russian empire with Karabakh and Shusha with Shushi, 2) POV pushing 3) massive edit war.
• However in Ahmad Agdamski, Latif Karimov, Yusif Vazir Chamanzaminli and several other articles Grandmaster was involved in a long edit warring in the same context of Shushi/Shusha. Note especially these last 3 reverts of him ([53][54][55]) which result in the statement as if Shushi has been part of Azerbaijan in the period between 1884 and 1906, when Azerbaijan did not exist at all. Well, those edits are evident "POV pushing" and Grandmaster knows very well that they do not solve the issue, but are rather a cause of a new continued edit war.
• Grandmaster is involved in an edit war in which a dubious map is 10 times removed and replaced from the ADR article within 3 days.

I am worried about that a user who just made flagrant POV edits and has engaged in edit war demands that I am placed under permantent edit restircions. He accuses me of massive edit war when I actually tried to stop it and to urge other users to reach consensus before massive chenges. I ask admins that they do not leave this case without a proper response because then he uses arbcom cases to threaten me if we have differences. --Vacio (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never reverted any article more than once a week, unlike yourself. And reverting massive vandalism by anon IP is not edit warring, edit warring are all those undiscussed POV changes and reverts in dozens of articles that the IP made within the last couple of days. Grandmaster 06:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverting is a poor strategy for resolving content disputes. I recommend that both of you attend mediation or perhaps see if you can find a path forward via Wikipedia:Naming conflict. I am not going to issue any sanctions at this time because I do not want to encourage disputants to file WP:AE requests against each other (WP:GAME). Jehochman ^Talk 17:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really have difficulty with VartanM’s block; he did not act anywhere near as bad as Parishan has. Since when should someone be blocked for reverting an obvious revert material, and given the circumstances, vandalism? Did any administrator check what the content of the revert was? This user (Parishan) has no use of other users comment to even engage in debating. The article for which he was reported shows Parishan engaging in fringe theory pushing. This is what Parishan was inserting: Azeri served as a lingua franca throughout most parts of Transcaucasia (except the Black Sea coast), in Southern Dagestan[8][9][10], Turkish Armenia, Kurdistan and Northern Persia from the sixteenth century to the early twentieth century.[11][12] It is unlikelly that Parishan could not have known that the material he was inserting was bogus. Let’s see the two sources he has used, first source: Nasledie Chingiskhana by Nikolai Trubetzkoy. Agraf, 1999; p. 478. In those pages you will also find Armenians being called: parasite and slave. Parishan’s cherry picking and twisting of sources is again at the center of the problem. See under which context it was said: However, it is far from unimportant, what languages to precisely select for this purpose. The author has a policy of instoring one language in that region. He claims Azeri being a good choice because, from his words: larger part of Transcaucasia (besides the Black Sea coast) and, furthermore, in Turkish Armenia, Kurdistan and in northern [Persia]. Parishan’s version which reads: from the sixteenth century to the early twentieth century is supposed to be sourced with this. But the work was published in 1925, and was speaking about a period when there were no Armenians left in Turkish Armenia. So how can his wording even be justifiable, how do you debate with someone who will bring you in a circular discussion about an obvious revert material? More is that the writer, while a credible linguist is not credible here for two reasons, first because the work, which support his theories about the Muscovite princes (he was one such prince) claims them to be the heirs of the Chinggisid rulers. (see here). The second reason is that it was the interest of Russian authors during his period to associate Turkish people with Azeri, because Russia was still laying claims against Turkey. But the author also says that Azeri is a Turkish language. In any case, Turkish Armenia refers to pre modern Eastern Turkey and on top of that, Parishan added a date range which was not supported by that source, adding the date range shows that he knew to what period Turkish Armenia referred too. The second source used by Parishan, J. N. Postgate. Languages of Iraq. British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 2007; ISBN 090347221X; p. 164, does not even require an address to, as it does not support his wording... worst, is that Parishan quoted of it in the talkpage, left down junk of text, replaced by three dots. Problem is that without retrieving what is in those three dots, the source which already does not support his claim, becomes totally useless. Adding insult to the injury, the author himself place the term Azerbaijani in quotation marks. We are supposed to debate with a user, who time and again misuses sources, and when revert has no problem reverting. I or any other users would have reverted Parishan, I don't see why under those circumstances VartanM should be punished for it.

More about the reverts, it's hard to accept the fact that, Brandmeister could go on to disturb articles' integrity by renaming them. He even claimed that it is per talk, when even Grandmaster admitted not having a problem with the name of the article. Brandmeister’s revert was indeed completely unacceptable. Reverting his action, should be in fact considered as vandalism. How can a user comes out of the blue and rename an article, which both side have agreed to the name of, and then the revert of this revert be used to block another user? Even the chargé d'affair of the republic of Azerbaijan, Farid Shafiyev has used that term to refer to the incident, so reasonably there should be no problem to call it that, when the very large majority of sources call it that. How in the world should any user accept Brandmeister’s actions, and leave it at that, because of a 1RR. Mind that the AA2 does not restrict only to 1RR, in fact it was amended because it had to include other forms of disruptions.

About said map of the Azerbaijani republic from 1918-20, I think the disruption going on there can not be left unanswered, I am referring to this. See from where the source comes from, it is a recently prepared map which was placed recently in the websites of the republic of Azerbaijan. Not one user has provided any sources with those frontiers. Will any good faithed user caring for accuracy vote “keep” for something which he can't substantiate? See here Grandmaster who voted keeps saying that a part which is included in that republic was independent as another republic. What's more is that that map is against the majority position. The National Georgraphic visited Armenia twice, it did draw a map of the republic of Armenia from 1918-1920, here is a copy of that map.

About Nakhichevan, the article contains the Armenian word in the lead, Grandmaster or other users did not have a problem with it for a long time, problems only started with Brandmeister’s revert, from then on, Parishan, Baku87, Grandmaster and the revert had all a problem with. Azeri, English or all foreign names derives from the Armenian word for the place. It is of course logical to include the source of that name and is even common usage. Half the article includes its history, where Nakhichevan has been in Armenia since the 6th century. VartanM argument was never addressed; he did not even receive a reply for it. How can anyone revert without even bothering to answer him, not even with an edit summary.

All those incidents happened all together, seems there is a disastrous effect on Wikipedia when Moreschi is away. In brief, if VartanM should be punished, others should too. Thank you. Fedayee (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely seems like there has been a campaign by certain editors to try to bait user:VartanM into breaking one of the arbitration rules regarding AA articles. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vartan has faced reasonable arguments regarding his edits, instead he proceeded with not only bold actions, but mudslinging as well. The content of his reverts, especially the last ones, is quite obvious.

Regarding me, I don't 'disturb articles' integrity'. The talk page contents are open to everyone and yes, it is per talk. The sentence is quite obscure, reverting whose action 'should be in fact considered as vandalism'? Grandmaster's? Being in Wiki since 2005 I don't consider myself 'coming out of the blue', if this is what Fedayee meant. I don't know which word Farid Shafiyev or other scholars apply, the only thing is that Plato is my friend, but my best friend is truth. As such I consider that issue quite worthy of renaming. That's all since this is not the best venue to solve content disputes.

Now, I think my keep vote in the map nomination was substantiated enough, anyway I can ground further if necessary. Nakhichevan's issue is in progress so far, so, again, no need to roll out another content dispute. Fedayee's fallacious logic if VartanM should be punished, others should too is just demagogical conclusion.

And Pocopocopocopoco, there was no alleged baiting campaign at all. The one who breached the normal editorial process is known. Your claim tends to be a part of Vartan's conspiracy theories. Brandспойт 11:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, Azerbaijani the lingua franca for the entire Transcaucasus? The editors putting that in must've known the reaction it would have caused. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a place to bring disputes over content, as indicated atop. Brandспойт 20:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about content its about baiting editors. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the fact that VartanM was blocked for reverting content in which the source of the content had referred to Armenians as 'parasite and slave' and it does look like he was baited I believe VartanM's block should be overturned. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No he did not face 'any' arguments, in fact he was reverted without prior argumentation. Your renaming was absolutely unacceptable and you continue misleading by claiming per talk. There was no per talk, this is what Grandmaster wrote in the talk: The title can remain,..., and this was the issue which was debated, as you can see from the sources provided by Grandmaster, the article’s title was not what was debated, but rather the intro, as even his sources call it Armenian-Tatar... (and Grandmaster never attempted to deny that) You came up there and moved the article, not knowing what the conflict was all about. Here is a sample of Grandmaster's revert, which shows indeed that the problem and what was debated about was the intro and not the lead. So yes, you did indeed jump in by moving the article twice [56] by refering to the talk, when the debate was not even about the article’s title. Had Moreschi been here, you would have surely ended up with at the very least a strong warning for this. How can such a disruption be even allowed?

Here is more evidence that you did not even read Vartan, had you read the link to his reply which you totally ignored, you will see that it was even not referring to his 'other Roman' example, but rather on the use of foreign name in the lead of articles, he provided Alpenglow as example, and if you check the article Rome, you will see the Latin origin of the word. You did not even bother reading what he was providing, in fact, you just reverted him. This makes Vartan’s revert justified in the talkpage, yours not, but he ended up being the editor who was blocked.

And your claim that there is no baiting campaign falls short, if we check the recent contributions by some users, we see that is what happened. Baki66, for instance. Baki66 reverts VartanM in Nakhichevan article, removing the Armenian term, without ever having written a word in the talkpage, Vartan was even not worthy of a comment in the edit summary. After doing this, he will be adding the Azeri term on Kars article, he will reinsert the disputed map, then revert Zlerman, then go on with a series of reverts [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]. Finishing it all this and this.

Vartan’s block was not fair, and is the result of ignorance, from an administrator who did not bother viewing and checking what was happening. See here for instance, when reports become a little too much complex, we are even not worthy of being answered, or our request given consideration. Only when it is about 1RR or incivility can we get any reply. Vartan discussed and justified, he was reverted by members who did not even bother justifying. In Parishan's case, he was punished for reverting a fringe theory, something which Parishan has been pushing on several articles for years. It's not that this was never documented, it was. - Fedayee (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see how Vartan 'justified' his edits, bypassing the talk: rv vandalism by Grandmaster's puppet (1st), rv vandalism by Grandmaster's puppet (2nd), rv vandalism by Grandmaster's puppet (3rd), rv vandalism by Grandmaster's puppet (4th), rv vandalism by Grandmaster's puppet (5th), rv vandalism by Grandmaster's puppet (6th). The issue is now at the naming conventions talk. Finally, patently baiting over Nagorno-Karabakh, Vartan added the 'fact' tag to his short-living claim: you should be the one waiting... waiting and waiting some more. This is just some part of his activity, so he was fairly cooled down. brandспойт 09:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you ignored, justifications are made in he talkpage, and justification does not mean some irrelevant comments like you have done. You totally ignored comments made in the talkpage and now you are not even addressing what I have written documenting the fact that you totally ignored the talkpage. We are dealing again with incivility vs article disruption. Incivility being the result of the latter. The fact that you find nothing wrong in the renaming of the article and claiming per talk when the debate was not even about that shows your total disregard of what others write. Vartan's "disruption" is nothing compared to yours. But you are right, incivil comments shine for administrators, easier to see, in comparison to content disruption. And of course like I mentioned, when we expect something more complex by administrators they run away and do not even bother answering. So I will not be surprised if this is archived without proper answer. - Fedayee (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too since you are actually requesting an unblock. brandспойт 05:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The empty room is full of people who care. :) Meowy 23:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, seriously, maybe the good-faith party should concentrate on editing the articles, allowing the truth to speak for itself, rather than expending energy on this stuff which few admins bother reading. Meowy 00:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone oughta take a look at this user. Over a dozen reverts today. Some sort of a revert warrior that just popped up of nowhere sans any useful contributions, ever.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it would also be good if someone took a look at severe violation of WP:Civil by Eupator. Comments like Your map is just fascist regurgitation are not really helpful. Grandmaster 07:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Baki66 should at the very least be CUed with Baku87 and AdilBaguirov. He appears to be closely involved with fishy POV pushing Cross-Wiki. As can be seen from other language Wikipedias, the recent POV pushing which VartanM fell victim to is the tip of the iceberg. See here the POV pushing with the same map and the same claim. Baki66 does not appear to be a new user, Parishan's POV pushing on adding Azeri terms on Kars has been practiced by Baki66, see here also. He also added in the genocide article Xojali (claim prepared by Adil). See the rename here and battled on the rename on the Polish Wikipedia too. There is enough ground to checkuser him. - Fedayee (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To hell with checkusering him. Ban him! Meowy 23:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One should look at the edit history of this user, his recent 50 edits are almost all reverts without even an edit summary! The persistent and unexplained reverts of this user match in many cases with that of Baku87, in particular when he reverted the ADR article in favour of Baku87's map (2 reverts in 1 day: [65][66]), removed Shushi from numerous articles ([67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74] etc.) just after I had replaced them and called on to reach consensus before such massive changes, unexplained reverted the Nakhchivan article([75]), as well as recent reverts in the Stepanakert and Shusha articles. --Vacio (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see here the usual combatants gaming this board for advantage in a content dispute. Try dispute resolution instead. If any reasonable editor, not involved in the dispute comes here with a complaint against any one of you, there is a good chance I will place a sanction. However, I believe that those with unclean hands should not be encouraged to make enforcement requests against one another. The length of the complaint is appalling. If you have a case, state it plainly with diffs. Don't try to snow us with a wall of text. Hopefully you will all take this advice to heart. Jehochman ^Talk 17:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I advised Colin4C on their talk page that the article was subject to AE sanctions here and outlined what areas were covered by the sanctions which they chose to ignore. I removed the chronology here and went to the talk page to state why here although they knew this from previous discussions as can be seen here in addition to here. I also pointed out that they removed the link to the article created by Rockpocket here and ignored the advice of both Angusmclellan which was offered here and by Rockpocket here.

Colin4C then made their first revert here and their second revert here both within a 24hr period.

The article already has an article on the chronological summary and is linked to article, which resulted from a discussion here, with advice offered here. It was acted upon here by Rockpocket, who answered questions on it here during a discussion on it here.

What I’d like to see happen is Colin4C self revert, that Admin’s tell Colin4C that the article does fall under the AE sanctions and they breeched them, and that if they want to add a Chronology they get consensus on the article talk page. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Asking for sanctions against Reporting a user who reverted twice in 15 hours when you yourself also reverted twice, albeit in 25 hours, sounds a little too much like gaming the system to me. Also, I am unconvinced that the article should fall under the Troubles purview. Black Kite 12:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per AE Sanctions: All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. I think that is pretty clear User talk:Black Kite don't you? As to "sounds a little too much like gaming the system" is a matter of opinion, does not change the fact that the sanctions were breeched. Or is this just more of the double standerds we've come to expect. Now do me a favour, tell me what sanctions I asked for here? Oh that's right, none. I think I'm being reasonable don't you? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored above. I think you're being reasonable, I just don't believe there's much to do here. If an edit-war develops or a single user is breaching 1RR repeatedly then I'd be more inclined to take action. Black Kite 13:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to view this post positively given that the reporter, Domer, has reverted twice too, and unlike (AGF) the reportee, is well experienced with ([dare I say] gaming) the rules and knows that All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. Moreover, Domer48, unlike Colin, has previously been placed already been placed on "indefinite" probation here, and got this removed after a being conditionally released from a later indefinite block. See also his record on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Great_Hunger#Enforcement_2. Admining by the book, this is a 72 hour to 1 week block for Domer (if we discount the extra hour), and 12—24 hours for Colin. I'd suggest talking to each other in good faith is something both parties might want to give a wee try for a change. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts too. However, no problems with blocking either editor. Perhaps increasing blocks are the only way of making a point in this tiresome saga. Black Kite 13:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on his talk explaining to Colin he has to follow the rule. Domer, though possibly trying to game an editor not as clued up on AE matters into a block, didn't technically break the rule. I wouldn't disapprove of blocks here, but I'm also happy to let this go and see how both parties respond. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that User talk:Black Kite for striking you comments above it’s very much appreciated. Now Deacon of Pndapetzim the facts are that I did not breech the 1RR! That's it! Anything else is a matter of opinion. Now that’s going by the book. There is however the other book, the arbitrary powers book which has nothing to do with policies and which you are now citing from. No point asking for cites from it, since it’s made up as we go along. What happened to that indef probation on me? Oh ye it was thrown out for the joke that it was. And the Famine ArbCom, oh ye the other editor was banned as a sock abusing editor. Why not mention the block for 3RR on me were the blocking Admin lost their tools, and I only reverted twice on that occasion. We could mention the block for calling an editor a liar, along with countless diff’s to support it, the problem is it’s not against the rules to call someone a liar when we apply the double standard [76] [77] . So the question I have is, is the Famine covered by AE Sanctions. Deacon of Pndapetzim letting an editor know about the sanctions before they breech them is not game an editor, want to strike the comments like User talk:Black Kite or stick with the accusation. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No sanctions are needed here, yet. When you bring a report to this board, say what case has been violated and specifically which provision(s) of the final decision. Then provide a concise summary with diffs. The initial report fails, and looks to me like the continuance of a content dispute on the WP:AE page. Please, don't use this page in an effort to get leverage in a dispute. Use dispute resolution instead. Further instances of this sort of behavior by the involved parties may result in blocks on the parties as needed (including the filing party). That is the consensus of this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 17:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for taking up your time with such a minor thing, but in the upcoming Judea/Samaria terminology ArbCom case, I'm worried the limited topic ban Elonka placed on me will be used again to cast undue doubt on my conduct. Upon finding it had been placed erroneously, Elonka promised to lift or at least reduce it after one week [78], then forgot about it and went on a Wikibreak. In her absence, I have been advised by PhilKnight to take the appeal here.

Details: On 15 February 2009, Elonka wrote:

MeteorMaker, you have been cautioned before about removing citations to reliable sources. Since you have started up again, I am going to make this formal: You are banned from

• Making Samaria-related reverts to any article in the Israel/Palestine topic area
• Removing reliable citations from any article in the topic area.

This ban is in place for 90 days. [79]

Upon finding that I had in fact not removed any sources, the reason for the ban was changed:

MeteorMaker, you have been cautioned before about removing citations to reliable sources. Since you have started up again, I am going to make this formal: based on the recent pattern of reverts, and working your way through several Israel-Palestine articles and making Samaria-related reverts, I am therefore instituting a formal ban [80]

I had not been cautioned about making Samaria-related reverts before the ban, and the number of Samaria-related reverts I had made in the preceding week was exactly two — hardly enough to discern a "pattern" [81]. Both were in order to fix problems with claims that were either unsourced [82] or sourced exclusively with highly partisan refs [83]. Elonka confirms I had not done what I was originally banned for:

You are correct about the citation thing. I saw the edit summary, and that citations had been removed, but missed the part about you moving the citations to a different part of the article. I am amending my statement accordingly, and apologize for my error.

Elonka continues:

Regardless of the citation issue though, I am still concerned by the recent history that you've been showing of working your way through multiple articles and removing the "Samaria" term. This is provocative behavior, especially when done rapid-fire through multiple articles in a topic area that's already very difficult to keep stable. In some cases, I see that your change has already been reverted. It's good that you did not re-revert, but it's also a concern that these controversial changes were being made, without any attempt at discussion on the related talkpages.

I had not been cautioned that substituting universally accepted, neutral terminology ("West Bank") for minority partisan terminology ("Samaria"/"Judea") constitutes "controversial changes" and "provocative behavior" that may result in a ban. The "without any attempt at discussion" charge is not entirely applicable, as this topic is among the most well-discussed and well-sourced in the I/P field, and I've generally put a link in the edit summaries to a special page with a summary of this multi-talkpage discussion and the sources it has generated. [84], rather than repeating the same arguments over and over. Other editors have also stated that this discussion is best kept centralized; currently, most of the relevant terminology debate has taken place on TALK:Israeli_settlement and its archive pages.

Elonka concludes:

In terms of the ban, I'm open to reducing it, but let's see how things go for a week, and then we can re-examine the situation and see about reducing (or even lifting) the ban.

One week later, she announced she's taking a wikibreak, and I cannot reach her. Given that she has stated that she intended to shorten/lift the band, and that the ban was based on extremely loose ground in the first place, I hereby appeal to have it lifted. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Elonka said she would re-examine in a week, not lift/reduce it in a week (which were given as options rather). At any rate, as Elonka is on wikibreak and the Arbitration Committee are about to have a fresh evaluation of such matters, I don't see any harm lifting it. That is, without prejudice to reimposing such a ban should it seem necessary to Elonka or another uninvolved administrator. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Hamas reprisal attacks has been named so after consensus discussion in the talk page.

User:Yamanam started to change the name unilaterally:

Began here:[85], ended here [86].

His talk page comment, when questioned at first: [87]. It is patently obvious to anyone that 2009 Hamas reprisal attacks is a much more neutral, balanced and encyclopedic title than the current one, which as pointed out by another user, is mangled english to boot.

I attempted revert to the original name, but a bot had fixed the double-redirect, so move-over-redirect is not possible. It requires admin intervention.

Besides immediate return of the article to the original title, I leave it to admins as to how to address the behavior.

But I must say that in the entire time I have edited WP:ARBPIA articles I have not seen a more crass example of POV pushing and provocative, destructive behavior. This is why I am takign it straight to AE. I cannot assume good faith in these circumstances, so I ask for uninvolved admin intervention.--Cerejota (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, u r ignoring a lot of rules by taking this to the ArbCom, first, I was bold, second my reply to you in the article's talk page (which came before u posted this comment) shows my good faith, moreover, there is ignore all rules although it was not in my mind, and finally why didn't you discuss it with me, it is no the end of the world! you could have discuss it with me.

Now concerning the topic I chose:

• • The used sources refers to the victims here as collaborators which is another word for spies that I used in the title.
  • All of us acknowledge that Hamas is has full authority over Gaza, which means what they were doing is terminating, which is, more or less, an equivalent word for reprisals.
  • Most importantly, when I read the title, the first thing that came to my mind, reprisal against israel, but the actual thing that the article doesn't discusses reprisal attacks against israel, rather against spies or informants.

I can't see what is wrong with the current title, u should have informed me what is wrong with my title and u might be able to convince me.

And plesae take this in good faith: if there is a room at wiki for such a title: Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict then I thought there would be a room for this title: Hamas’ termination of spies active during the 2008-2009 Gazan-Israeli conflict I am serious, I can't see a difference between both titles! Yamanam (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THis is WP:ARBPIA. As I said, I currently find it hard to AGF with you, so rather than go thermonuclear, I am here to get an admin to revert you. If they want to sanction you, their call. But this page must be reverted ASAP. We can have a discussion once this issue is resolved. I must point out however, that you just admitted to WP:POINT.--Cerejota (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, my post here came after your response, but not before I declared my intent in the talk page. I had already made up my mind.--Cerejota (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't want to keep on discussing you, now at least, I'll leave it to the admins, I had stated my point. Seems you are already pissed off and I don't want you to say something that you might regret. My whole point is summarized here assume good faith, which you are ignoring. One last thing, why would I be sanctioned? I didn't do anything wrong, just assume good faith. --Yamanam (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yamanam, I suggest that in future you use the talk page to develop consensus for major changes. At this stage, you aren't going to be sanctioned, merely notified of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions in relation to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. However, if you continue to be disruptive, then you could be topic banned. PhilKnight (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also moved the page back, following a rough consensus on the talk page. I think it would be preferable to use Wikipedia:Requested moves for any future contentious page moves. PhilKnight (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Cerejota for leaving me a vandalism warning. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake of the automated tools, since you appeared as the creator of the redirect. I am sorry.--Cerejota (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk, tsk. Tool junkie. Jehochman ^Talk 15:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite already having received a block for violating the current injunction in the date delinking arbitration (AE report, block notification), Ohconfucius is once again engaging in a program of removing date links from articles en masse as part of edits. Examples:

[88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108]

— Hex (❝?!❞) 03:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone think a 1 week block is not called for? Kevin (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since he's making other edits at the same time. --NE2 03:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest? Kevin (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would refer you to this post by User:Risker at WP:ARBCOM concerning similar edits. It was ruled that I was not in violation. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the last sentence: "He has not edited frequently enough to be considered carrying out mass delinking." Considerably fewer articles were involved at that time, over a longer period, with significantly more improvement to the articles themselves. I do not believe these two situations are identical, Ohconfucious, and I won't have you using my name as an excuse to violate the Arbitration Committee's injunction. Risker (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be most useful if that interpretation was posted alongside the injunction. It does put things in rather a different light. Kevin (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hex is plainly aware of the judgement. He is bringing this frivolous/vexatious complaint here again in an attempt to get me into trouble, and should be ignored. If he wasn't stalking me, how would he know about all this? Ohconfucius (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 72 hours. Tiptoety ^talk 04:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For heaven's sake.... (fill the rest in yourselves) Kevin (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned this user for this edit which is technically a violation of his (ill-thought out, rediculous) topic ban. Hipocrite (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided that for the next six months, I will edit so-called "fringe science" pages to correct misspellings when I come across them. I am doing this as an act of civil disobedience. I do not believe it is WP:POINT violation because I do not believe I am disrupting Wikipedia by doing this. I also believe that I am in good standing with WP:IAR. I do believe that others will disagree with me, but I have grown past caring. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted Hipocrite's removal of SA's edit. I'm not thrilled by the edge-pushing promised, but I think SA is right. SA wasn't right to remove my Talk page comment, but let's let that one go, I certainly wouldn't have brought it here unless further disruption appeared (and maybe he was right about that one too, but he shouldn't be getting into potential catfights, removing Talk comments is dicey.) Please, don't bring AE enforcement reports over trivial and small kindnesses. Since Hipocrite thinks that SA's ban was "rediculous" [sic], could this be a WP:POINT violation? (Not SA, Hipocrite.) It certainly is a disruptive action, wasting my time and the time of those who follow AN/AE. I'm taking a short wikibreak. --Abd (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before SA made his spelling correction, however, User:Abd invoked his name, in direct violation of the "Baiting" principle. In this edit, made before SA had violated his ban, Abd wrote "Have you read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science? Might be worth the time. Read it carefully, and note the result for ScienceApologist." Science Apologist had not edited Cold Fusion or it's talk page since December of 2008 Why would Abd bring up Science Apologist on a page Science Apologist had not edited for over two months if not to join in the "persistent low-level attacks and other continuous goading of specific editors in order to exhaust their patience and induce them to lash out in an uncivil manner."

User:Abd had been warned for similar conduct - most recently by User:Stephan Schulz at 07:54, 4 March 2009. Hipocrite (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to Hipocrite at my Talk. I'm a little puzzled that he'd ask me a question on my Talk, then, without any response, take it to a Noticeboard. The edit wasn't baiting, and I was astonished that SA showed up, it was totally unexpected. Hipocrite seems to have totally misread the comment, and persisted in this after my explanation. Something strange is going on. He suggested I copy my comment here. Instead, I'll point to the section on my Talk, and to a permanent link for future generations. --Abd (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All this over a typo. right, I think carrots rather than sticks are what's required. There will be absolutely nothing constructive coming from leaving this open. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This "ABD" section is not about a typo. The above "ScienceApologist" section is. Hipocrite (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ImperfectlyInformed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Opposition to water fluoridation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This edit is extremely problematic. The user in question is including numerous blatant mischaracterizations of sources, cherry-picking only General Ripper-esque conspircy theory sources, and conforming the article to a coatrack status in stark defiance to the warnings imposed upon him directly through this very board not two days ago[109], [110]. Per this arbitration decision I ask that this user be explicitly warned about his promotion of water fluoridation paranoia rhetoric and perhaps even given a break from editing such articles.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The occurrence of mild dental fluorosis at the PHS recommended concentration is not controversial, all mainstream reviews and metaanalyses mention it, and even quantify it; see Water fluoridation#Safety. I won't comment on the rest of the changes, because I've not reviewed them. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This thread is a WP:POINT violation. I am going to stop the disruption by closing this thread. Any other admin is free to determine if the participating users need to be sanctioned. Jehochman ^Talk 17:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScienceApologist is evidently testing the limits of Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, where he was topic-banned for a variety of infractions, including:

• "generally edit(ing) aggressively above and beyond what would be necessary and justified by a neutral point of view"
• "a combative approach to editing and to engaging with other editors"
• responding to a page ban by User:Elonka by editing Elonka Dunin, in what could "reasonably be understood as an attempt at intimidation, or at least disrupting Wikipedia to make a point".

Obviously, ScienceApologist has not (in practice) learned much, since he has continued with two more examples in the above vein:

• (1) A frivolous attempt to community ban User:ImperfectlyInformed, which was rejected per WP:SNOW. Attempt was obviously made in retaliation for II's legitimate flagging of a conflict in which SA was involved.

• (2) A frivolous attempt to sanction yours truly (section just below this one, at the moment, titled "Pseudoscience report"). Complaint is dealt with below; meritless on substance and flagrant example of WP:KETTLE (as if this from me, in response to this from OrangeMarlin, in the context of this discussion could hurt the feelings of OrangeMarlin, of all people). Only in the most hypocritical and drama-queeny of universes can I imagine that SA's complaint about my "combative and derisive tone" was made sincerely. Clearly, it was made in retaliation for my criticizing SA's conduct in the episode above involving II (which, ironically, also involved SA's lodging a frivolous and retaliatory complaint). These actions increase only heat, not light. Stop them.

• (2a) Bogus accusation of COI. Per Wikipedia:Coi#Examples, ""Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest".

• (2b) The bogus COI accusation is also, by definition, a personal attack. Per this section of WP:NPA:

Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.

• (2c) Attempting to violate WP:OUTING by speculating about my profession, which could be used to link me to old accounts. Reading WP:OUTING in its spirit and not just its letter, it says that posting certain personal info that a Wikipedian doesn't choose to disclose is a no-no. As I said below, I don't disclose my profession on-wiki (I don't mind doing so off-wiki). That's my prerogative. It's personal info, and there is no basis for COI (and on top of that, it's a damned personal attack, in the context of an obviously frivolous claim meant to harass) -- so, how is speculating about it EVER justified? I want the harassment to stop, now.

The substance of both of SA's actions above (against II and myself) can legitimately be dismissed under WP:SNOW. Still, these are flagrant violations of WP:GAME and WP:HARASSMENT (and, let's be real, WP:DICK) for sure; exactly the sort of thing those ArbCom findings above identified as problematic.

Personally, I'm significantly more annoyed and discouraged about editing than I was before this happened, which I'm sure is the result SA intended (plus, some people actually enjoy poking others with sharp sticks).

I think that the relevant ArbCom case sent a clear message to SA -- that you can improve content without being a dick -- which he is now trying to test the limits of. The question of whether SA can't or won't change his behavior is somewhat interesting, but in any case the remedy is clear. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Editors_warned says:

"All editors in the disputed area are warned that further disruptive editing in the disputed area will be viewed dimly by the Committee, and my lead to further sanctions being imposed."

Please, sanction him swiftly and surely, and help put an end to this corrosive anti-collegiality that is (as the case noted) driving away good editors and having a bad effect on the project.

Finally, in the interest of avoiding duplication and the appearance of forum-shopping, I'm raising the above issues here only. My complaint about the WP:OUTING attempt is real, and is included in the above. best regards, Middle 8 (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong stretch of the outing policy. Shot info (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even go in the ballpark. Why would one want to? What good purpose is served by revealing putative information that a person expressly doesn't want stated on-wiki? Hmmmmm? The COI argument doesn't fly, as I've shown. Oh I remember: it was to harass my ass. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about now? - try to stay focused please. Shot info (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a simple caveman editor; my prefrontal cortex isn't developed enough to stay focused like the rest of you. Me make simple: Outing not good. No good even come close to outing. No good violate spirit of law. Me like bananas. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SA Generates a steady stream of time-wasting bureaucratic attacks on people he disagrees with. WP:AE appears to be his latest toy. Artw (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artw -- agree. Given that he's already under ArbCom sanction for that behavior, the fact that he'd continue it here at an ArbCom noticeboard is remarkable, to say the least. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new one today. Every minor gripe is worthy of mention at AE it seems. Artw (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is rapidly approaching incivility. If the complaints have no merit, they will be (and are being) rejected. Please stop poking the editor with sticks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state for the record that in my opinion WP:FRINGE has no useful mechanism of enforcement at present, and that SA's approach was the only thing that gave it any effect. I have been a pretty regular participant in WP:FTN, but the topic ban of SA has pretty much demoralized me, and I no longer have any faith in the possibility of defending Wikipedia against fringecruft. Looie496 (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

having read over all the reasons why SA received a topic ban (on the link above), I am shocked at your suggestion that his approach was a desirable 'mechanism of enforcement', and if it's true that that is the only useful method that self-styled 'defenders against fringecruft' have, then you all really need to rethink your approach, and reconsider what you're doing. aggressive bullying tactics like that are destructive of the wiki as a whole. I for one am glad that this kind of attitude got set back on its heels a bit; now maybe we can all work towards neutral articles on fringe topics without having to fight for every punctuation mark against a wave of petty scientism. --Ludwigs2 05:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• With regards the WP:OUTING, I'd like to comment that before SA's post about Middle 8's occupation, I had absolutely no idea who this editor was in real life. Now, that I know this editor's occupation, I am fairly confident I know exactly who Middle 8 is in real life. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, which post is that exactly? Shot info (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first one in the section he created below this one. This edit specifically. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As is standard procedure with outing attempts, I'm not confirming or denying the substance, so Levine2112 can only speculate. Still, SA's comments were unwelcome, gratuitous and infringed on my privacy. They were clearly made as part of a pattern of harassment, a bad habit SA can't seem to shake. Whether or not it rises to the formal threshold of WP:OUTING, it's obviously very poor behavior. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop pressing SA's buttons. Middle 8, you are being most unkind for no good reason. We at WP:AE are not fools. We can see what's going on here. Please don't fan the flames. Jehochman ^Talk 17:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is extremely problematic. The user in question User:Middle 8 is adopting a combative and derisive tone and claims the mantle of NPOV problematically while supporting the sympathetic POV towards acupuncture. I happen to know that this user gets paid to perform acupuncture (evidence can be had privately so as to avoid outing concerns). Per this arbitration decision I as that this user be warned against this kind of behavior. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, lighten up, SA, and go have another look at WP:KETTLE before the irony gets too thick to stand. OrangeMarlin and I go back aways, and although we disagree we respect each other and are good-spirited even when things get a little rowdy[111]. We were getting along just fine (permalink) without your "helpful intervention" here, which, given your history, I can only assume was in vengeful response to this, where I uttered uncomfortable truths about your excessively aggressive editing.

However, my earlier olive branch to you was real. But it has its limits: You be collegial, I be your friend. You no be collegial, I no be your friend.

Honestly, dude, have you no shame? This kind of "revenge action", like you did to Seicer and Elonka, is exactly the sort of thing upon which ArbCom said they'd look dimly. And here you're blazing ahead as if that ruling never happened. You want to test those limits? OK, but as a practical matter, I really don't think you should. The screw can only turn one way for you from now on: if you push limits, sometimes sanctions on you won't tighten, sometimes they will. If you can't refrain from poking people with sharp sticks, then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. And if you want to "go out with a bang", please move your blasts so that I'm not in your radius.

Oh, by the way, your outing attempt here has been duly noted. WP:OUTING says posting certain personal info that a Wikipedian doesn't choose to disclose is a no-no. That includes job title, dude. If you want to know the information I want to disclose on WP, it's on my user page. Anything beyond that is not your business. (Also, WP:NPA is clear as can be that editors' off-wiki affiliations aren't grounds to attack them. My edits are reasonable, and that is where the focus should be.) I have every right to do what our colleague Shoemaker's did, i.e. leave and come back with a durable, not-to-be-outed pseudonym. Your posting info like that potentially threatens my privacy, and like your report here, is harassment. Stop it, por favor.

I didn't seek this conflict nor do I relish it, but I am going to respond by reporting you for your attempted violation of WP:OUTING. I don't like the appearance of escalation, but I have my limits, and privacy is one of them. Back off, and don't poke me anymore. Thanks. --Middle 8 (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about asking Orangemarlin whether he considers the tone of that edit summary appropriate or not? It looks as if SA is attempting to describe a financial conflict of interest within the bounds of Foundation privacy policy, which is an appropriate thing to do. If Middle 8 thinks SA crossed the line in some way, suggest taking that up with a neutral third party. Disclosure: I mentor Scienceapologist, although he and I have not discussed this particular incident or the personalities involved in it. Durova^Charge! 22:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Durova: I can say with 100% confidence that OM had no problem with that ES. Both of us have done rowdier, and it's fine when it's people you know.

With respect, Durova, you're simply wrong about COI: a person's merely having X profession is never a basis for COI, period ("Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest"). (Naturally I'm not going to confirm or deny the substance of SA's outing attempt). Additionally, since it is a wholly bogus COI accusation, it is an NPA (click for section): "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."

Pretty clearly, then, there is no merit in SA's post at all. He is WP:KETTLE-ishly complaining about the mildest of zingy edit summaries on my part, a genre in which he and OM excel, sometimes IMO excessively. SA is just gaming the ArbCom decision to harass me, with an outing cherry on top. Lovely. He doesn't seem to have learned anything from the [ArbCom ruling concerning him]. I didn't seek this conflict, but I'm not going to stand for the harassment: no editor should have to. I want to edit articles and enjoy broadening my intellectual horizons, not fend off GAME-ish attacks. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is clear is your opinion of your relationship with OrangeMarlin, not whether OM shares the same view. If you're confident of that, why not ask him to come and weigh in at this discussion? Durova^Charge! 22:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova - I'd ask OM if I didn't think it were a waste of time. You should feel free to ask him, though -- and along the way, please explain why this issue is anything more than completely peripheral. (Remember, I'm being poked with a sharp stick -- SA is frivolously trying to bring the ArbCom noise. So sorry if I'm a little curt here.) --Middle 8 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I don't think it's fair to drag OM into the middle of this. The question is whether my edit was bad enough to invoke an ArbCom sanction, and if not, whether SA raised this complaint inappropriately. OM's insights are therefore no less nor more valuable than any other editor's. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who asserted twice that you were sure of Orangemarlin's opinion. Let's get that from the horse's mouth. It may help too cool down an escalating situation. Durova^Charge! 01:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Yeah, I'm sure it didn't offend him. I'm also sure that there isn't a whiff of COI or pseudoscience violation here. And that SA's complaint here is the second frivolous and retaliatory complaint he's filed today. -- Middle 8 (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shows what I know. Next, my bullish market predictions will be disproven, or something. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a violation of OUTING to note that you receive income from performing accupuncture. It is not your "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information." A job title and work organisation would be along the lines of "Vice President(job title) at Acme Corp(and work organization)." Hipocrite (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Hipocrite: I don't disclose my profession on-wiki (I don't mind doing so off-wiki). That's my prerogative, and it's not appropriate for anyone else to speculate on it -- particularly since the information could link back to previous accounts I might have had. It's personal info, and there is no basis for COI (and on top of that, it's a damned personal attack) -- so, how is speculating about it EVER justified? regards, --Middle 8 (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←OK, since my name is being bandied about here, I'm going to comment. First, I didn't like the tone of the edit summary. Now, all who know me would assume that I'd have verbally clobbered Middle 8 under normal circumstances. My not doing so was not an oversight on my part. Although I do not agree with Middle 8's edits, I have found that in his previous incarnation, he was semi-reasonable. I was willing to overlook his edit summary with a little banter, and did respond to him on the discussion page to see if we could work out a compromise. This doesn't mean I accept Middle 8's view of things, hardly. It's more like I'm willing to massage verbiage a bit. So, everyone needs to lighten up a tad. Yes, I thought the edit summary was over the top, considering Middle 8 and I have had a collegial relationship. Yes SA should have come to my defense (but probably not here), since he did not know about our banter. I know that Middle 8 has a vested interested in acupuncture, so he has to overlook his personal bias to keep the NPOV on the article. We had a Chiropractic editor who was not a very compromising editor, and I gave him crap all the time. I know where SA is coming from, and I know where Middle 8 is coming from. A group hug would be productive here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on upping the good vibes -- I certainly have intended to offend no one. I do believe SA's coming here rather than the acu talk page was extremely hostile and ABF on his part. If I'm gonna trust SA, he's gonna have to earn that trust by not being an asshole to me, especially when I try to make nice with him.[112]

OM, you do realize your ES's can be just as cranky as mine was, right? Not seeking to justify mine, just a little bit surprised that I misjudged (a) how I came across, and (b) how you'd take the kinda thing you sometimes dish out. IOW, I thought you liked a little good-natured rough-and-tumble rhetoric. I'm sorry for causing offense, and surprised that I did. Just goes to show, you don't ever know...just watch each card, and play 'em slow...

I also feel that WP:COI is being taken to ridiculous extremes with the notion that members of a profession have some sort of interest in that profession that creates a problem on WP. Read COI again: there is none simply for being in a profession. Given my experiences here in the past with people who got away with ridiculous attacks, I do not disclose every detail about myself, including whether or not I stick needles in people; suffice it to say am nonetheless an expert editor in the field, one way or another. I'm definitely more on the "believe in it" side, but there's a range of reasonable opinion, and given that I'm more conservative than the WHO, I think I'm within that range. It seems to me that I'm the kind of editor WP should be glad is editing, given that I have pretty deep knowledge of TCM, know the rules and know my ass from the scientific method. Well, whoever said the beast (WP as a whole) had any intelligence.

I reject SA's escalation, and maintain he hasn't learned his lesson. I'll hug him after he takes a bath or someone hoses him off; everyone else, sure, hugs all around. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) Just to summarize (and place this info where it belongs), SA's complaint is meritless on substance, not to mention a flagrant example of WP:KETTLE. It's highly improbable that this from me, in response to this from OrangeMarlin, in the context of this discussion could (a) be construed as a pseudoscience violation, or (b) hurt the feelings of OrangeMarlin, of all people. It is true that I sarcastically claimed the NPOV high ground in response to his doing the same; in the scheme of misconduct that's probably about a 2 on a 10 scale, especially since we instantly de-escalated on talk, because we're grownups, not drama queens.

On the topic area, some technical detail: It's obvious from the talk page that we were having an exchange over how properly to depict the state of play in acupuncture research, which is definitely a grey area: the British Medical Ass'n issued a qualified endorsement of it; the WHO says its efficacy is proven for a whole host of conditions. The article also notes that a 2007 review led by Professor of Complementary Medicine Edzard Ernst (who is very skeptical of anything lacking the highest caliber of evidence) finds that the "emerging clinical evidence seems to imply that acupuncture is effective for some, but not all conditions." OrangeMarlin found a review questioning whether acu was effective at all, and edited the article to reflect that; I felt his edit went further to the it's-not-effective side than the sum total of our sources justify. And I haven't even mentioned the thorny issue of how to design an adequate placebo for a procedure as opposed to a pill.

So, if ScienceApologist is trying to imply that by taking anything other than an unqualified hard line against acu, I'm pushing pseudoscience, he only shows his own ignorance of the subject matter and tendency to play fast and loose when it suits him. OM and I are, then, debating how to summarize acu's efficacy. We're doing fine, thanks. ScienceApologist could have chimed in at the acu talk page, but instead he escalated straight to here. I think that speaks volumes about the lack of good faith behind his actions; he seeks only to inflame and not to enlighten. Smack him with the banstick for this and other inappropriate conduct, and show that the decision topic-banning him was for real. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Middle8 a recent metastudy showed no real evidence of acupuncture doing anything, but anyway that is a content dispute and AE as I understand is about whether an editor's conduct is ok or not. Sticky Parkin 01:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do know there are other meta-analyses? I won't repeat my points above. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss it, but WHO is not a reliable source. Government agencies have political agendas. There is not a single reliable source that confirms that acupuncture works. Ernst, though I respect, did not publish his opinions in a peer-reviewed journal but in a mass-market book. We need to follow WP:MEDRS to verify claims. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst made his statements in peer-reviewed meta-analyses, not just his book (did he endorse acu at all in his book?). On WHO, the biggest criticism I have is that the inclusion criteria are so lax; they're mostly case studies -- but see below re double-blinding. I agree a healthy skepticism is warranted toward government bodies, but they're not worthless; the NSF report on pseudoscience has been used without objection (probably because its conclusions sounded good to the skeptic editors, eh? What's good for the goose...). The WHO does come under MEDRS, just not real high. ("'Ideal sources for these articles include ... medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies.")

As to the statement that "there is not a single reliable source that confirms that acupuncture works", don't you think that kind of raises the question whether there's a single reliable source that confirms ANY surgical technique works? You can't double-blind a procedure ... period. Pretty much. They're making some headway with acu, but the issue is far from settled in the literature, even though Ernst may think it is settled to his satisfaction. So, should WP as a rule say in the lead section of every surgical procedure that there is no evidence they work? There are gold-quality sources saying this. Should we cite them uncritically, or is that maybe an undue weight problem? You see what i mean, right? We may want to unpack this issue for real, and talk about other levels of evidence in the EBM tier.

And see, I don't think this is going to end well... because these are all legit questions, but people like SA are gonna go all ABF on me and try and portray me as if I'm spinning like Martinphi (who actually made a good point or two in his day, but didn't know when to stop). A spectrum exists in terms of evidence for things... acu is in a grey area, and as long as people like SA don't get all shouty and dismissive like Ann Coulter et. al., we can depict it with reasonable pith and nuance. But we have to get rid of the idea that people like me are POV-pushing just because we disagree on subject like acu, which if ID is a 10 and homeopathy a 9 and physical therapy is a 3, is about a 5 or 6 in terms of flakiness. Tell you something -- theoretically, if I were in a position to make money from acu, it would mean little because two family members of mine are major-league disabled and I'm the main full-time caretaker (and have a, compared to them, minor but real medical disability myself). Smoke that COI. I'm everyday people. cheers, --Middle 8 (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've looked Middle 8's edit in question, and it's appalling. For instance, here's the first sentence of Middle 8's version.

And here's the abstract of the source he uses to support it:

Only the last clause of Middle 8's sentence is supported by the source; the rest is solely Middle 8's opinion. Meanwhile, Middle 8 deletes all evidence against acupuncture from the lead. And this is meant to be NPOV?

Crossposted to Talk:Acupuncture

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, I didn't delete anything substantive... and in fact your edit removed an excellent source, Ernst (2006). However, I'm not going to stand here at WP:AE yelling about how your edit was "appalling", because I'm reasonably sure it was a good-faith error, and I see no need to polarize the debate further. My full reply is at Talk:Acupuncture#More_re_lead_edits. I suggest a highly efficacious homeopathic chill pill for all parties. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This message board is not a game board. Stop playing Risk (game) here, lest you all get blocked. SA, why on earth are you pushing the limits of your sanctions? (I don't agree with them, so I won't volunteer to enforce them, but come on!) Jehochman ^Talk 17:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No breeching of the sanctions has occurred. Decorum has been maintained. Kevin (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mooretwin was advised at 10:31, 2 March 2009 here that they breeched the WP:1RR outlined on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles in the section titled Final remedies for AE case which state “All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.” By removing the notification here they acknowledged they read it.

The two reverts are:

• 1st revert 00:06, 2 March 2009
• 2nd revert 00:07, 2 March 2009

with an additional revert on *09:15, 3 March 2009

When I replaced the information here without being ask, I provided quotes from the references used here with an additional reference and added the reference here and book title here. Which now numbers six references and footnotes.

The text has been removed on a number of occasions including: [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] .

The relevant discussions can be found here, here and here. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two reverts in question were - fairly obviously - in reality part of a single revert, i.e. I removed the contentious text as per the discussions. Then I realised I hadn't removed the relevant reference and removed it immediately. You might notice that the two edits were within a minute of each other! This complaint is petty to say the least, and, in my view, part of this particular editor's strategy of demolarising editors who dare to challenge his perceived ownership of various articles. He's a serial complainant: a regular visitor to this page and AN/I with complaints. All rather tedious.

The rest of the complainant's post relates to a content dispute in which I and another editor are involved. As content disputes are not relevant here, and hence I won't comment unless asked by an Admin. Mooretwin (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Domer, I'm concerned that you're still so much more interested in getting opponents punished than collaborative editing, and that you didn't heed the concerns made by myself, Black Kite and Jehochman about frivolous forum-shopping little over a day ago. See WP:3RR: .A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so Deacon could you explain my block for breaching 1 RR seen as you know all about reverts as I still can't figure it out and considering you said The restriction in an electric fence... so explain please or is just because Domer has made the report. Also Mooretwin you say Domer is a serial complainant does that make you a serial offender? BigDunc^Talk 14:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon, please show me were I’ve looked to get opponents punished? The last report I made here pacifically did not ask for any sanctions. Both Jehochman and Tznkai will both attest to the fact that I have in fact asked for Admin intervention to prevents sanctions and have done so for quite some time now. Now as to your interpretation of 1RR, please read this here. The revert restriction refers to any reversions on the same page within 24 hours - regardless of the particular content...--Tznkai (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC) This discussion also shows Deacon you defending Moortwin, and attacking Dunc, the exact same thing you did in this discussion here. Now please explain your comments and your consistent attacks on both myself and Dun. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is very simple. Taking two edits to revert is not the same as two reverts. The difference is clear, per the passage from WP:3RR above. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not just say that instead of your diatribe about Domer? Is he not allowed to bring what he feels is a breach here? Or was it you intention to muddy the water for any other admin who might come across this thread? I accept Mooretwin's explanation of what he did regarding the reverts and I'm sure Domer does too but I can't speak for him.BigDunc^Talk 14:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is all extremely petty. Domer48 would be better served investing his energies into collaborative editing rather than constantly running to AN/E and AN/I. Maybe he might like to reflect on why he finds himself in conflict with other editors so often. Mooretwin (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mooretwin could you please not pull up another editor over a spelling mistake Domer has Dyslexia and spelling mistakes are common with people diagnosed with it. BigDunc^Talk 14:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll take that on board and overlook the poor spelling in future, unless, of course, it appears in an actual article. You know him, then? Mooretwin (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From wikipedia thats all. I know him aswell as I know you. BigDunc^Talk 15:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you know he has dyslexia? You don't know about my disabilities. Mooretwin (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Deacon, Tznkai was wrong here The revert restriction refers to any reversions on the same page within 24 hours - regardless of the particular content...--Tznkai (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC). If Admin's who I've emailed privitaly to prevent edit-wars and sanctions wish to say so I've no problem with that. And like Dunc, I can accept Mooretwins explanation of what he did, having been blocked for the exact same thing myself. Deacon you have again created a drama, based on your unfounded accusations, strike you personal attacks and stop trying to muddy the waters. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not.: e.g. it is NOT a Battleground. Your persistent revert-warn-forum shop pattern, (as evidenced alone by the two threads in this page, targetting two different editors) is against policy as well as the spirit of good collaboration, and you are stretching patiences here (including mine). I want to see you spending more effort in relationship building and constructive dialogue than the opposite, the constant (usually unfounded) forum-shopping against ideologically opposing editors. PS, I believe you need to reread the definition of revert in WP:3RR. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon of Pndapetzim I know exactly what Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and I also know what the standards are for active membership, and how editors should conduct themselves. Now, you throw accusations around and can't or won't support them and are stretching patiences here. On the two threads I raised here, it was you who created the drama. You'd block either myself of Dunc in a heart beat if you could, and I've provided the diff's to support this. Now again, I came here to report a breech of 1RR, I again, did not call for any sanctions. I've asked for editors to revert their breeches and use the talk pages and looked for AE to support this, but every time we come here we get the same BS. The next time you make an accusation, have the good grace to back it up with a Diff. Now so there is no more confusion, WP:1RR needs to be amended to reflect this new interpratation, Tznkai's obviously being wrong according to Deacon of Pndapetzim, and when reports are filed they should be dealth with according to the policies. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Deacon as I stated above you said The restriction in an electric fence... have you changed your mind? Is it open to interpretation now?BigDunc^Talk 18:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, BigDunc, you are both misinterpreting WP:1RR and Tznkai's statement about it. The policy is clear that consecutive edits count as one revert, therefore Tznkai's statement can refer to a single edit or a series of consecutive edits. There is no need to amend WP:1RR whatsoever. Kevin (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malcolm Schosha just falsely accused me using a template of engaging in 3RR[130]. The template doesn't mention in which page this alleged 3RR was engaged, but does mentions the edits of an specific user, so I must assume he refers to Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.

A perusal of the edit history will show that there is no 3RR violation[131], and the fact that I have had an account in Wikipedia for almost four years, with almost 10,000 edits, shows that I am not a new editor, so templating me was not needed, specially on the part of an involved editor.

Due to this templating, I ask that an uninvolved administrator please formally inform him of the terms of the WP:ARBPIA, and that this be logged. I hope that a further understanding on the conditions in which we edit my provide this user with the opportunity to reflect and correct his treatment of other editors, and allow for a more positive collaboration and editing environment.--Cerejota (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume good faith. Perhaps Malcolm Schosha was just confused. WP:DTTR is an essay, worth reading and following, but it's not policy. Could you notify him about this thread and let's see what he says. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And Malcolm was himself just templated. And Wikipedia grinds on. IronDuke 21:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What goes around, comes around. No arbitration enforcement needed here. Jehochman ^Talk 23:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScienceApologist, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science is "banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles."

Creation science is a fringe science topic. In this edit, ScienceApologist adds a space after a comma. ScienceApologist is not permitted to edit Creation science. I have reverted his edit.

Atropa belladonna has been twice protected due to fringe-science edit wars (over Homeopathy). It is, in fact, under the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy decision under Discretionary sanctions re:Homeopathy, which is a "fringe science topic." The article was edited by Science Apologist here, in which he Wikilinks subshrub. I have reverted his edit.

I will inform SA of this report. The fact that his edits are harmless copyediting is not relevent to the fact that his valid ban prevents him from copyediting on pages related to Fringe Science. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This fits in with his stated desire to push the boundaries and the statement of his desire to "IAR" his topic ban by the Arbitration Committee on his talk page. I would recommend blocking him for a short amount of time, 12 hours or so, and moving it up if/when he continues to ignore his topic ban. SirFozzie (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another adherent of the Wikipedia:Punitive model it seems. How droll. You should have never been made an administrator with that attitude. Jehochman is right. Arbcom erred terribly when it made it "illegal" to make unambiguous improvements to the encyclopedia simply because I happened to see them. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop taking the bait. Hipocrite, don't file any more complaints, and don't revert useful contributions such as formatting or grammar fixes. After there is a lengthy pattern of abuse, we can propose to have SA banned entirely. This incremental block-unblock cycle is utterly useless. Check SA's block log. Short blocks don't work. Jehochman ^Talk 15:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baring a clear, unambigous statement that it is disruptive of the encyclopedia for me to do so, I feel it is my obligation to notify this board of violations of all sanctions I am aware of when I see them. I will endeavor to avoid reversions of SA's edits that are "obviously helpful", but I must still presume to revert. Looking over this again, I would have merely reported the space, but still would have reverted the wikification, as I can't be sure that linking to subshrub doesn't have some meaning to homeopaths that would be offensive. Hipocrite (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with H. I can't think of any previous topic bans for which violations were to be ignored and reporting of them considered "baiting". I interpret SA's actions as being driven by contempt of the ArbCom process and an attempt to undermine them. In fact I think he would probably admit that openly. Ronnotel (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnotel is partly correct. I have reached a nadir in my respect for arbcom. However, my actions were not driven by this contempt (remember WP:AGF). They were driven by a desire to improve the encyclopedia. I can't help it if we have arbitrators who make rulings that are so orthogonal to helpful they're nearly impossible to enforce. I warned them of it on the talkpage, but apparently they had better things to do than listen. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not make an accusation of "contempt" lightly. In particular, the statement on your talk page declaring that "This user ignores all arbitration rulings made about him" indicates that you are not willing to abide by any ArbCom ruling with which you disagree. Ronnotel (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I have "contempt for arbcom", but that contempt is not itself what is inspiring my edits. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a case of "lets see how far I can go before they stop me". Like being told not to cross a line, then putting your pinky toe over the line to see if you get a reaction. I suggest our reaction is to make the boundary very clear to discourage further testing. The example of personal attack above does not fill me with sympathy. Chillum 15:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooor, we could evaluate each edit on its own merits. Keeping SA from editing frince articles is fine, but if he's making uncontroversial typographic fixes, etc. we should be thanking him for improving the encyclopedia rather than warning/blocking/banning him. I'm someone who has generally disagreed with SA (and other like him) in the past, but even I think this is stupid. If it's a controversial edit, bring it here. If it's something like fixing the spelling of "anouncement" or putting a space after a comma, let. it. go. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely uninvolved here, but ScienceApologist, why can't you just propose the edits (even typo fixes and other innocuous stuff) on the talk page and let other editors make the edits? It's compatible with the ArbCom restriction and still allows you to improve the articles, albeit indirectly. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nthing not taking the bait. SA is attention seeking, please stop giving him what he wants. Artw (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposing a typofix on the talk page is absurd. Ideally, SA would avoid such articles completely to reduce drama. If SA decides to provoke drama by making typo fixes, you all should be smart enough not to take the bait. Come back if SA tries to provoke an edit war by making controversial edits. Otherwise, let it go, as Ali'i has said nicely. We don't enforce rules unless doing so would make the encyclopedia better. Preventing typofixes makes it worse, so we should not enforce against this particular "violation". Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody step in about the ongoing edit war over at Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), between TodorBozhinov (talk · contribs) and PMK1 (talk · contribs)? The two have been engaged in a rather unconstructive pissing contest about who can fill the page with more images symbolically evoking their favourite national perspective on the issue, with openly WP:POINTy edit summaries like "Well, if I can't remove POV images, I'll emphasize the undisputed Bulgarian character of the population in the past by adding old foreign maps. You aksed for it, you got it", or: "No need for extra book covers, for extra partisan photos, etc., etc. You started it, you'll face the consequences.". Not nice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though neither of them are new, the edit war seems to have cooled by now. I have given them general warnings with links to the arbitration case, and watchlisted the article in case it comes up again. Dominic·t 12:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Dominic#Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia. I apologize for my choice of wording and I didn't mean to sound threatening, but the article is in need of some serious cleanup and since you guys think my attempts to do that are unproductive, then go fix it. I'm stunned as to how you can allow 5 (five!) pro-Macedonian images in the article and 0 (zero!) that represent the Bulgarian position, not to mention that they are historically much more relevant and useful. In the future, please join the discussion instead of reminding me of policies I've been aware of for years. I haven't been 3RR-ing and my edits are not without reason: bar the edit summary wording, what's the problem? Todor→Bozhinov 14:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Users put on notice. As for the content dispute, can you take it to WP:DR or WP:NPOVN, please. Jehochman ^Talk 23:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science ScienceApologist is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles.

Atropa belladonna has been twice protected due to fringe-science edit wars (over Homeopathy). It is, in fact, under the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy decision under Discretionary sanctions re:Homeopathy, which is a "fringe science topic."

The article was edited by Science Apologist - [132] after his ban.

I have reverted his edit and will inform him of this report. The fact that I suspect both sides would accept his comment (I think?) is not relevent to the fact that his valid ban prevents him from solving disputes on pages related to Fringe Science. Hipocrite (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not an article that is categorized as fringe science. I reject it as being "fringe science" and, as discussed here, applying the rules that the people who attempted demarcation outlined would not consider it to be fringe science either. It is an article about a real and actual plant. The edit I did is no different than this edit, this edit, or this edit. I am not disrupting Wikipedia because it's actually a very good edit. There is no such thing as a "plant molecule". Plants are made of many different kinds of molecules. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the key phrase is supposedly "broadly construed", I don't see how including this in "Fringe Science" is in the spirit of the arbitration ruling. The ruling is not supposed to prevent ScienceApologist making uncontroversial competent edits to articles about plants. So I don't think there's anything to be done here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question has gone through major edit wars about homeopathy, as evidenced by the two article protections and it's inclusion in the Homeopathy sanctions. If SA is allowed to edit article about plants that fringe science edit wars have broken out over, next he'll be allowed to edit articles about preservatives that fringe science edit wars have broken out over, or even molecules, or basic scientific theories. Where do we draw the line? I can't imagine a ban only from articles like Time Cube and Homeopathy is what ArbCom had in mind, was it? Can he edit Cold Fusion, as long as he's not violating any other policies that another editor is subject to?Hipocrite (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note from me saying that I re-incorporated some of ScienceApologist's edit into the article. If I erred against the arbitration ruling, please feel free to revert me. Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article being edited is Atropa belladonna, but the edit in question concerns the plant's relation to Homeopathy. Also, considering the edit history of the Atropa belladonna, the assertion that the edit is 'uncontroversial' just won't fly. And, one should also take note of this Dlabtot (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

much as I would really like to avoid this entire conversation, I would like to call attention to this edit - [133] - ScienceApologist made on the fringe theories noticeboard. I'm thinking particularly about the line "We'll continue to make people who want to see fringe theories treated 'kindly' feel bad...". The implicit threat, combined with his pushing the limits of his sanctions on the AB page (without even, mind you, engaging the lengthy discussion on the AB talk page, which would have been perfectly allowable), suggests that he is entirely unrepentant and recidivist. the 'we' also suggests that he's cooperating with other editors to violate his sanctions, though I have no proof that that is the case beyond that single 'we'. I don't think it's ever been wikipedia practice to make other editors 'feel bad' in order to get your way on articles, and the fact that he is making that claim this soon after receiving sanctions for similar prior bad acts makes me think that stronger sanctions might be in order. pardon the intrusion of my opinion, but I'd rather not see a new round of edit wars begin at AB because he's testing the arbcom waters there. --Ludwigs2 23:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c with Ludwigs2) Regarding [134], I think that in the aftermath of the ArbCom decision ScienceApologist can be expected to do some mild venting. He won't however be blocked unless he actually acts on this. The arguments here seem too much like slippery slope, and I feel that blocking him for this edit would be proactively clarifying the arbitration ruling in a manner that is both unfair and for little gain to the encyclopedia. The ruling bans him from any article relating to fringe science topics not from performing any edit relating to fringe science topics (bolding mine). The ruling is very open-ended, but to secure blocks for such edits those desiring to prevent him making such edits would probably be better getting an ArbCom clarification. I do however encourage other uninvolved admins here to disagree with me if they see a need. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon: speaking as someone who's been blocked twice for milder venting than this (and that without an arbcom sanction hanging over my head), I have to admit that your post leaves a sour taste in my mouth. bit of a double standard... at any rate, If these sanctions have any meaningful purpose at all, it should be to encourage SA to participate with less aggression and more communication; allowing him to 'vent' like this with impunity simply defeats the purpose of the sanctions. I don't really have an opinion about him getting blocked (I'd be fine if he doesn't and fine if he does) but I think that any clarification of the limits of the sanctions should be expansive. it should be made clear that he's obligated to play nice, and that that obligation extends to everything remotely fringe. --Ludwigs2 00:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are as follows: If not for the broadly construed part, Deacon, I would agree. Let's not get too legalistic here. I do see this edit as problematic.

He's been restricted from fringe science topics, such as homeopathy. This edit specifically infringes in an area that he's been restricted from. I would not support any action being taken at this point on the issues, however, assuming good faith. Let's make it clear, going forward that his restriction applies to edits within the "fringe science" area and move on. That would be the best way to prevent future issues in a contentious area where he's been restricted. SirFozzie (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(re to Foz) You would support a warning then, stating that SA will be blocked for performing homeopathy-related edits? Broader wording? Perhaps then this could be converted into a ban, deriving from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#ScienceApologist_topic_banned, that could be logged for clarity at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the need to file an arbitration clarification request (or how to), but things like this, are deleterious to Wikipedia, and should be avoided. Can the community just agree to allow ScienceApologist to correct typos (without needing to go back to arbitration)? While technically "violating" the former ruling, it's clearly helpful to the encyclopedia, and shouldn't be blindly reverted. If a formal request is opened, would someone please copy my comments there? Mahalo. --Ali'i 23:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the typos, the problem might be partially that no-one wants to be the admin that blocks a user for fixing typos. On the other hand, letting it go opens up the possibility of gaming and pushing the line. Ideally this should have been clarified, but AE admins aren't fools and will act if a certain line is crossed. SA, at the moment, performs such edits at his own risk. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have some clarification on the actual extent to which users are allowed to deliberately violate bans? Is the rule of thumb that you’re allowed to do it so long as it’s a trivial edit made purely to prove a WP:POINT, or if you are feeling bored and would really like some attention? Artw (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps this particular issue could be resolved by some ArbCom statement to the effect that editors can revert SA's edits on articles covered by the sanctions without it counting towards 3rr. that way, SA is free to make corrections such as this, but if he does something more questionable no one will have any worries about undoing it? just a thought... --Ludwigs2 00:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone care to weigh in on this provacative edit made by ScienceApologist: [135]? Wasn't SA specifically warned about targetting User:Elonka in such a retalitory fashion (See X5)? I don't think that it is fair to afford SA the "but I was baited" defense any longer, when it is clear that he is the one doing the baiting. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned him specifically on that. I'm working on the wording for the section above, I will post it here and on SA's talk page when I come up with clear enough wording for that "clarification". And Ludwigs, I don't think that would be advisable. SirFozzie (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say, give him a good old spanking for that. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing a warning, just a claim that doing so was intimidating (which is laughable, especially considering Elonka's longstanding attempts to intimidate SA with threats of blocks, etc.) and a POINT violation. Elonka was never spanked for her harassment, and neither were other admins who hounded him with biased actions. That's not an excuse for a poor decision here (I was the one who denied the prod), but, come on, we're not here looking for excuses to spank people, we're looking to solve problems, and he was at least right to say that Elonka mever should have made that redirect to her own article in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DG: Note, I've warned him not to continue, I'm not going to block him or what not if he doesn't continue. I can certainly have words with Elonka about that, but to prod it smacks heavily of being a retaliatory measure against an editor who he's had conflict with. Considering the history between the two users, and the ArbCom findings against SA, he really should ought to know better then that. SirFozzie (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there could be some lingering confusion on the topic ban of ScienceApologist, which reads as follows, I have clarified the restriction as an ArbCom Enforcement action:

The restriction: 3.1) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles.

Passed 8 to 3 with 1 abstention, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The clarification: Violations of this topic ban include making edits concerning fringe science topics, even to articles that would not be considered fringe science topics. SirFozzie (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, SirFozzie. I hope for his sake that ScienceApologist will follow this clarification given his recent proclamation:

"This user ignores all arbitration rulings made about him." [136]

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that quotation is not pressing for a battle, I don't know what is. Thanks for the clarification SirFozzie. seicer | talk | contribs 01:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before we go any further, I want to make something fervently clear. This is MY action. I do not speak for ArbCom. I do not think for ArbCom. I do not dance for ArbCom. This is my action to make it clear that he can't hide behind the legal fiction that since 95% of an article does not cover his topic ban, he can freely edit the five % on which he's topic banned.

However, with statements like the one SA has made below, basically saying "Oh yeah? Well, I'm going to do it anyway".. combined with the statement copied above that he's planning on ignoring all ArbCom rulings against him, I hope that someone pulls him out of the spiral he's currently in. Wikipedia needs all the good editors they can get. SirFozzie (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support this clarification. It's exactly what is needed. If there's any process opposition you can always just log it as a new restriction at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions, which provides for such things. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey look, Ludwigs, Dlabtot and Levine are all getting their pieces of pie in. I better get mine in too... Shot info (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to note that he has a prior restriction that has since lapsed on this very article. seicer | talk | contribs 01:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This page is not a chatroom. It is not for clarifications either. It is for requesting enforcement of ArbCom decisions. The usual antagonists of SA (Hello, Levine 2112) should refrain from lobbying here. Leave it to other editors who don't have so much bad blood. Jehochman ^Talk 03:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Kendrick7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the last 3 days, Kendrick7 has inserted links to years in some 40 articles: The edit summaries are straightforward to the effect, except occasionally he will refer to such linking as 'supplying context or somesuch. He is plainly aware of the injunction, but relies on the defense that 'years are not dates'. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, [137], 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, [138], 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40. The linking is referred to in the complaint below, but is not formalised. I am doing this for the record. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you file a report here, state what case you want enforced, and which sanction or injunction. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody show me evidence that Kendrick7 was aware, or should have been aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision#Temporary injunction against automated date linking or delinking? Jehochman ^Talk 16:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick7 has been warned here. Unless somebody can show me evidence that Kendrick7 was previously warned about the injunction, I am not going to support a block at this time. Next question, can somebody give me a reason not to block Ohconfucius for filing a vexations complaint? Tiptoety already explained this situation. It is a pure waste of time and disruption to the board when people file duplicate requests. Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Ohconfucius has been blocked by Daniel for socking and other misdeeds. Case closed. Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]